Re: Extension candidates

John Snelson wrote:

  Hi John,

> http://snelson.org.uk/~jpcs/higher-order-functions.html

> As Michael says, it might be appropriate for EXSLT to attempt
> something simpler than this proposal - but it will hopefully give
> people something to think about.

  It is indeed very interesting!

  First two little questions (a bit OT here, sorry): 1/ it seems it
is not possible to create a function item from a dynamic QName, is
it on purpose? (I guess so), and 2/ what's the difference between
both following item types (from the type hierarchy in "1 Function
Items")?

    function()
    function() as item()*

  About possible simplifications, I think the most obvious are
changes to the grammar.  Some can be changed to extra extension
functions (for example a function that returns a function item
instead of literals,) other are more touchy (like inline
functions.)  Some concrete proposals:

  - do not define the extension to ItemType, and do not define the
    exact type of a function item (can be defined as it were a new
    type of items, but no assumption nor test can be made about the
    real type of such items);

  - define a function to create function items instead of literals
    (should the name of the function by a real QName item, or a
    QName literal?);

  - do not define inline functions (at least in a first time);

  - define a function ex:call() for 1.3 Dynamic Function
    Invocation.

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/